One-third Windows 7 Issues Related to Installation

Now that Windows 7 has been out and about for a while, the first balance sheets regarding its success start popping up. Consumer helpdesk firm iYogi surveyed 100000 of their customers, and the results of that test paint a relatively positive picture for Microsoft’s latest operating system release – but one problem point sticks out like a big eye sore.

Thirty one percent of the people experiencing problems with Windows 7 report problems upgrading to the operating system. The second biggest group, 26%, stated they were confused what happened to programs like Windows Mail, Windows Movie Maker, and Windows Photo Gallery after the upgrade. As most of you will know, Microsoft decided to remove these from Windows, having users download them via Live instead. There were other issues too, such as people realising the Aero theme isn’t running (14%) or that their DVD drive isn’t working (8%).

So far, these first four problems – the top four identified by iYogi – seem to be related to upgrading or fresh installations. They are unlikely to occur when buying an OEM machine, since those will have been tested to work. The good news for Microsoft here is that more than 95% of Windows sales are new machines, meaning that these problems only affect a very small group. There’s bad news here too, which I’ll cover in a second.

First, let me complete the list. The rest of the list are issues that do not seem to be related to upgrading or fresh installations. Six percent of the people surveyed by iYogi found hidden file extensions problematic, while another six percent mentioned minidumps. Aero Snap (3%) and the iPhone (2%) proved problematic too, while 2% also noted that custom icons disappeared when changing icon themes. Lastly, 1% noted problems with the new taskbar.

I mentioned the good news – the bad news here is of course that it is appalling that upgrading the world’s most popular desktop operating system can be so problematic. We as geeks probably never upgrade to a new Windows release at all, instead opting to follow what common sense dictates: new Windows release? Clean install!

I think we can all agree that when it comes to seamless upgrades to new releases, Apple is the undisputed king. I’ve upgraded countless Macs from one release of the Mac OS to another, and they’ve all been mostly smooth sailing. Problems do occur, of course, but they are usually cases where a clear culprit can be pinpointed. In Windows, there’s really no specific issue – it’s problematic all over the place.

Linux distributions generally do a better job than Windows in theory, but the reports of Linux installations not working any more after a dist-upgrade – rpm or deb-based – are countless. In fact, I’ve never had an upgrade of Ubuntu succeed, and RPM distributions have given me nothing but grief too. Anecdotall, yes, but anyone who ever dared to browse Linux forums after a new Ubuntu release knows that the upgrade process is anything but smooth sailing for a lot of people. The release of 9.10 left countless people with Intel video chips with non-working machines.

Overall though, both Linux and Mac OS X generally do a much better job at upgrading, and I’m hoping that the cleaning of Windows is not only going on in the trenches, but higher up the stack as well. Maybe we might, one day, be able to cease proclaiming that ancient geek wisdom: new Windows release? Clean install!

About The Author

44 Comments

My friend spent $200 bucks of his hard earned savings on the ultimate edition claiming it’s the future. A month later his sound still doesn’t work, idle ram went from 800 to 900 mb, and fan keeps running.

Well, the original comment was anecdotal at best and most likely doesn’t really represent the situation properly. That said, your comment seems quite a bit more offensive to users who are using Linux for their computing needs. This applies to all parties but can’t we just stop calling each other zealots, idiots or whatever?

I have to admit, I’m pretty shocked. Having installed Windows 7 on quite a few machines for friends and family, and typing this on a spare machine set up just this morning, I assumed that the installation was as trouble-free for everyone. It must be a real hit-and-miss thing, depending on one’s hardware configuration, because I’ve run into no problems at all.

I have to admit, I’m pretty shocked. Having installed Windows 7 on quite a few machines for friends and family, and typing this on a spare machine set up just this morning, I assumed that the installation was as trouble-free for everyone. It must be a real hit-and-miss thing, depending on one’s hardware configuration, because I’ve run into no problems at all.

The writeup mentioned upgrade installs, I’m guessing that’s where the majority of problems have happened. E.g., some notes I made back in back in June when I tested out the Win7 RC and attempted to upgrade from XP (for the heck of it):

– selecting the upgrade option while booted from the install disc doesn’t work

– you just get a message telling you to reboot and run the installer from Windows

– did that, but get an error stating that you can’t upgrade from XP to Windows 7

You can’t upgrade from XP you need to upgrade to Vista, then you can upgrade to 7.

Yes, I was aware of that (even before the attempt) – but only because I specifically looked up the upgrade requirements.

Initially, the Win7 installer itself (at least in the RC) gives every indication that you can upgrade from XP (I’m guessing it simply checked for *any* previous versions of Windows, regardless of version). It doesn’t actually tell you that the upgrade won’t work until you’re 2 reboots and 15-20 minutes into the process.

I have upgraded Vista 64 bits, to Windows 7 64 bits on an HP touchsmart with no issues (soundcard needed a downloaded driver). I have “upgraded” Windows XP 32 to Windows 7 32 on an older Dell, that couldn’t run Vista properly, again with no issues. I am playing songs from my win7 box on my ps3, no issues. Trying to do the same on my fedora box … couldn’t do it … yet

Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn’t resist testing these scenarios. I am wandering though if the upgrade bug is the one between the screen and the chair

I have upgraded Vista 64 bits, to Windows 7 64 bits on an HP touchsmart with no issues (soundcard needed a downloaded driver). I have “upgraded” Windows XP 32 to Windows 7 32 on an older Dell, that couldn’t run Vista properly, again with no issues. I am playing songs from my win7 box on my ps3, no issues. Trying to do the same on my fedora box … couldn’t do it … yet

Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn’t resist testing these scenarios. I am wandering though if the upgrade bug is the one between the screen and the chair

Sorry to be a pain, but your post has totally confused me.

Are you saying you upgraded XP and Fedora (despite the fact that neither of them will upgrade to Win7)?

…or do you mean you did a clean install of Win7 on only the 1st system and then accidently used plural instead of singular when stating “Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn’t resist testing these scenarios“?

…or did you do a clean install of Vista and then upgraded that to Win7?

“Taskbar problems (In Windows 7, it’s difficult to tell at a glance whether an icon is a running application or a pinned shortcut): 1 percent”

This one got me. I like the new taskbar, but the difference between a pinned shortcut and a running application is just too small to nice. Not to mention, I haven’t quite for the dynamics down of how to launch 2 instances of an application from a pinned shortcut.

For example, by default, explorer (file manager) is a pinned short cut. This works great for one window. Now I click it again and it doesn’t launch a second window, but just restores the old one. I get what i want by right clicking and using the menu.

But I’m giving it some time. But for sure, the difference between running and pinned shortcuts is just too small.

I think we can all agree that when it comes to seamless upgrades to new releases, Apple is the undisputed king.

Not to knock Mac’s, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions. Even if you count every model of Mac since OSX was released, it wouldn’t come close to the number of hardware configurations of any of the Windows & Linux Distributions releases of the past 10 years.

I think we can all agree that when it comes to seamless upgrades to new releases, Apple is the undisputed king.

Not to knock Mac’s, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions. Even if you count every model of Mac since OSX was released, it wouldn’t come close to the number of hardware configurations of any of the Windows & Linux Distributions releases of the past 10 years.

Frankly this is a significant part of the value proposition of the Apple OSX combination.

I don’t see this as a disadvantage, but rather as an alternative choice which I am glad to have available.

I don’t see this as a disadvantage, but rather as an alternative choice which I am glad to have available.

I never said it was a disadvantage, I was merely stating fact. For some people that is appealing. For me, it is appalling. I much prefer piecing together my computers. In an professional environment, I might feel differently, but at home I enjoy playing and tinkering.

I would compare it to the people who like RC cars. Some just want to buy one and start racing. Others want the whole experience. I would be of the latter. There is nothing wrong in either of them.

I was thinking more along the lines of Mac OS X’s “upgrades” being minuscule compared to Windows (some refinement, a couple new features, etc., over something like Windows 98 to XP or XP to Vista). But that’s probably a pretty big reason you mentioned right there.

Er, i wouldn’t call upgrading from Panther to Leopard “incremental.” Tons of new features/apps/under-the-hood stuff in almost every upgrade.

I did it by:

1. Inserting the Leopard DVD

2. Clicking a few icons

3. Watching a movie

4. Restarting my iMac.

5. Getting to work.

Light years ahead of Windows upgrades.

This is how My Windows 7 Upgrade went:

1. Insert the Windows CD

2. Click a few buttons

3. Watch a movie

4. PC restarted itself(I guess Windows must be more advanced than OS X)

5. Do some work

In most cases, it’s this simple. It’s the potential problems from the immense amount of choice in peripherals and software that cause upgrade problems. MS (or anyone else) does not have the resources to test every hardware and software combination that exists.

If MS only had to deal with the limited hardware that OS X supports, upgrades would be that simple for Windows in all cases too.

Not to knock Mac’s, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions.

And even with Macs, the conventional wisdom (at least judging by what I’ve read online) states that you should choose the archive-and-install option – rather than the upgrade option – when installing a new version of OS X.

A brief aside/pet peeve: whenever someone mentions problems with OS upgrades, the fans of that OS (and this goes for both Windows and MacOS) tend to dismiss those problems with comments like “You should always do a clean install instead of upgrading, everyone knows that – what are you, an idiot?!?” If that’s the case, what the hell is the point of including an upgrade option in the first place? It reminds me of Douglas Adams’ description of the insurance business: “An industry that advertises a service, without actually providing it.”

I totally agree with you, the upgrade has always been a pain for all OS vendors. Less with MACs maybe, as they have to support really small number of hardware configs, whereas Linix and Windows much more. As a matter of fact, I’ve had more success in upgrading Linux than Windows, but that’s on a work machines. At home, unfortunately, I have to be a backup-paranoid and I can’t trust MS as a vendor, although my hardware config is pretty straightforward and has nothing funky in it. Nevertheless, I switched from old PC with XP to a brand new box with 7 Ultimate on it. Even though I’m not the biggest MS fan, I have to admit that I was surprised with : the speed of the installation – around 15 minutes, and I was booted into my new 7 desktop. The installation itself is just a few simple clicks, nothing complicated – I don’t think that the users are left with room for making errors – there’s just no such place. However, I believe, the customizations from Vista and something from the hardware hits those 31%. Then, with totally no experience or habits from Vista, I just started playing and working with the new 7. To me, it’s intuitive, fast and very user friendly. The ergonomic look and feel also has to be mentioned. I was able to find what I was looking for in seconds with no additional hassles. Nice job MS, people claim that Vista was bad, which I can’t comment, but 7 is really good for me. 4 weeks operating with one single reboot due to software installations, RAM stays under 1G no matter what I do. I also have to say that I’m not deploying funky gadgets or themes, the default one works for me – I spent most of the time in the browser anyway. Last but not the least, I didn’t have to install any drivers – everything is done by 7 – this is a big plus.

Went to the link above and it does not mention Windows 2000. Think that this is an oversight on Microsoft’s part or does anyone think that it may be possible to upgrade directly from Windows 2000 to Windows 7?

If any of these things are not identical, a clean install is required. It’s no wonder there are so many issues!!

Compare this to Mac OS, where one disc covers every single machine regardless of architecture or language (and thankfully, there is no tiered pricing scheme that prevents you from, for instance, switching the language of your OS unless you have “Ultimate”).

It’s really time MS took a hint…

EDIT: Looking at the chart, Ultimate does appear to be installable over Home Premium and Professional. But chip architecture and language still linger to trip up even the most indulgent of buyers.

Having upgraded one machine from Vista to 7 I must admit there have been no showstopper bugs but it did take quite some time and countless restarts. My experience with 7 is not one that is comparable to the hype that pervaded the net following its release. I have found it to use more ram at idle desktop than Vista and it also takes longer to get to desktop than Vista. When it eventually loads it is a pleasant to look at OS but I find it to be more counter-intuitive. Simple things generally seem to take longer to do than with say XP.

By comparison my upgrades to Ubuntu Karmic have been trouble free. I don’t get the negativity about Karmic because all my encounters and my friends have been just fine. So here we have five machines running Karmic wonderfully. As to Windows well 2 XP installs and 2 Win 7 installs and Windows mostly only ever gets powered up to do updates.

I am happy to see the mod comment on non-constructive bloggers comments regarding fanboys etc. We all use the OS that works for us, why be anti this or that. Simply post your experiences for all to benefit.

I’ve found Windows 7 mostly hit and miss. Ironically it seemed to work best on a whitebox system I built (P4P800 mobo, ATI video card). Manufacturer boxes seemed to have the most trouble (a Lenovo notebook and an IBM Thinkcentre desktop system). Problems ranged from freezing (not a problem with old OS) to the complete OS crashing over a weekend where nobody was around (not once but three times), requiring repairing from disc.

Ubuntu 9.10 is mostly a miss for us and I consider it the worst release yet (with 9.04 being one of the best). 9.10 seems to have power management issues, causing a number of notebooks we tried it on to overheat and shut down. We absolutely hate the dumbing down of GDM2 (gone are timed login, and the ability to just have a slit asking for username and password). And we’ve found it’s more fussy with hardware than 9.04.

I’ve been an Ubuntu user since 6.06 (I used 4.10 but wasn’t impressed by all the hype) so dissing this latest release says a lot about how much I hate it!

I’m glad to see that Microsoft has added more functionality to some of the apps in Vista/Windows 7. Paint for example was gawd aweful, you couldn’t even save to jpeg in releases before Vista. I’d still like to see the system requirements dropped. A couple of decades ago I wrote some code in assembler to draw a sprite on the screen and move it around using a joystick (on the Commodore 64). It moved so fast that I couldn’t figure out enough of a delay loop to slow the blur down. That was a 1MHz machine. Now we have dual core systems bogging down because they don’t have enough memory or video RAM…. it’s a bit nuts.

Debian is the king of upgrades, whereas Ubuntu is trying to copy the king. If you want seamless upgrades with linux, try Red Hat, Debian. DO NOT TRY TESTING SOFTWARE IF ALL YOU WANT IS A STABLE SYSTEM.

Well the Giant is still giving the users a false sense of savings because the retail “upgrade” version is cheaper. So as a consumer (non-geek) why wouldn’t you if given the option? So in a lot of ways the Giant still can’t climb down the bean stalk without falling on it’s head. Wake-up MS, give consumers a break. Lower the price of Full version and drop the upgrade version altogether. It sickens me how much different the consumer actually pays for Windows when comparing a new OEM machine versus a retail box. But that is for another time.

While a bit late to the party, I thought I’d throw out a new install of Windows 7 (EU Rome!) and Ubuntu on a brand new Lenovo laptop. The partitioning scheme got a bit wonky (user error) so I decided to do fresh install of each.

Ubuntu went on smoothly. The only thing not autodetected properly was the Nvidia card. The resolution was pretty good, but just not native. Did an update once the system installed, the new driver was installed and now there is full resolution 3d goodness.

Nothing worked on Windows 7 except the DVD drive. Video card not working properly, wireless not working at all, ethernet not working at all. I did save the driver folder from one of the Lenovo partitions and they installed without problems, but it took forever and I had to reboot after everything.

I can say that Windows 7 is better than Vista. Granted I only dealt with Vista for 5 minutes once, but those 5 minutes made me want to throw the laptop it came on across the room. Windows 7 is just sort of blah.